How do you feel about this?

[webfact]

Saudi Arabia still sees no role for Assad in Syrian transition

 

Syria's President Bashar al-Assad speaks during an interview with RIA Novosti and Sputnik in this handout picture provided by SANA on April 21, 2017, Syria. SANA/Handout via REUTERS

 

DUBAI (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia, a main backer of Syrian rebels, said on Sunday it still supported an international agreement on the future of Syria and President Bashar al-Assad should have no role in any transition to bring the war there to an end.

 

The Saudi Foreign Ministry denied media reports that Saudi Arabia was considering a political transition with a first phase in which Assad will stay in power.

 

Several media, including the state-owned Russia Today, said Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir had informed the Syrian opposition's High Negotiations Committee (HNC) about the decision.

 

A ministry statement, carried by the Saudi state news agency SPA, called the reports attributed to al-Jubeir "inaccurate".

 

"The position of the kingdom on the Syrian crisis is firm, and it is based on the Geneva 1 communique and on U.N. Security Council resolution 2254 that stipulated the formation of a transitional body that will run the country," it said.

 

The agreement also called for drafting a new constitution and holding a new election with no role for Assad in the whole transitional process.

 

Saudi Arabia supports the HNC and its efforts to widen its membership and unify the Syrian opposition, the statement said.

 

The announcement came ahead of the next round of United Nations-led Syria peace talks expected in September. Assad's negotiators have not met directly with the opposition because there is no unified delegation as the HNC and two other groups, known as the Cairo and Moscow platforms, all claim to represent the opposition.

 

(Reporting By Ahmed Tolba, writing by Aziz El Yaakoubi; Editing by Angus MacSwan)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-08-07

[klauskunkel]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Saudi Arabia still sees no role for Assad in Syrian transition

I see a role: martyr. It's traditionally a role for low ranking idiots, but Assad could pioneer this for the ruling elite.

[nasanews]

At least the Saudis never change their opinion about no role for Assad who killed hundreds of thousands of his people not like hypocrite western countries such as Obama when he said Assad is not legitimate president and must go! 

There are even disgusting ignorant westerns who prefer the butcher Assad over the rebels because they are muslims.

 

Edited August 7, 2017 by nasanews

[craigt3365]

Just now, nasanews said:

At least the Saudis never change their opinion about no role for Assad who killed hundreds of thousands of his people not like hypocrite western countries such as Obama when he said Assad is not legitimate president and must go! 

There are even disgusting ignorant westerns who prefer the butcher Assad of the rebels because they are muslims.

 

I think Obama did the best he could.  There are no easy answers in Syria...especially with Russia's involvement.  And SA's involvement.  And Iran's involvement.  And.....

[nasanews]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I think Obama did the best he could.  There are no easy answers in Syria...especially with Russia's involvement.  And SA's involvement.  And Iran's involvement.  And.....

Obama was coward liar and not as man as Bill Clinton who used the seventh chapter of the security counsel to stop the genocide against people in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[craigt3365]

16 minutes ago, nasanews said:

Obama was coward liar and not as man as Bill Clinton who used the seventh chapter of the security counsel to stop the genocide against people in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

What did Obama lie about?

[Ron19]

One post deemed not appropriate has been removed.

[Rancid]

Well the Saudis aren't exactly a pillar of democracy, in they they are a viscous dictatorship, why would anyone give them any credibility whatsoever? Secondly what business is it of them who the Syrians voted as President, at least Syria, unlike Saudi Arabia actually holds elections.

 

Then there is the issue that it is even admitted by western officials that the Saudis are financing ISIS is Iraq and Syria. So they are saying that they don't support the democratically elected government and want their head chopping Jihadists to take the country over by force. And this gets treated by Reuters as a headline of credibility? Bizarre...

 

[ilostmypassword]

58 minutes ago, nasanews said:

At least the Saudis never change their opinion about no role for Assad who killed hundreds of thousands of his people not like hypocrite western countries such as Obama when he said Assad is not legitimate president and must go! 

There are even disgusting ignorant westerns who prefer the butcher Assad over the rebels because they are muslims.

 

It wasn't because they were Muslims. It was because apart from the Kurds, the only effective opponents to Assad were Islamist fanatics including Al Qaeda and Isil.

[craigt3365]

23 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

It wasn't because they were Muslims. It was because apart from the Kurds, the only effective opponents to Assad were Islamist fanatics including Al Qaeda and Isil.

Not really.  The opposition was mainly Syrians who were against a brutal dictator.  Sure, there was ISIS also, but then again, Assad use to be buddies with them.  While they were doing his dirty work.

 

The opposition disappeared after Russia started bombing them and killing them all.  They linked up with ISIS.  What is the say?  The enemy of my enemy is my friend? LOL

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

Not really.  The opposition was mainly Syrians who were against a brutal dictator.  Sure, there was ISIS also, but then again, Assad use to be buddies with them.  While they were doing his dirty work.

 

The opposition disappeared after Russia started bombing them and killing them all.  They linked up with ISIS.  What is the say?  The enemy of my enemy is my friend? LOL

Whatever the compostion of the civilian opposition was, the military opposition - at least the effective military opposition was composed of the Kurds and radical Islamists.  The so-called moderates never amounted to much militarily. The mostly defected to Al-Nusra by 2013.

"Years later, US Special Operation Forces veteran and author Jack Murphy wrote that "as early as 2013, FSA commanders were defecting with their entire units to join al-Nusra. There, they still retain the FSA monicker, but it is merely for show, to give the appearance of secularism so they can maintain access to weaponry provided by the CIA and Saudi intelligence services...Also in 2013, U.S. senior military officials speaking on condition of anonymity indicated that the Pentagon estimates that "extreme Islamist groups" constitute "more than 50 percent" of rebel groups that identify as the Free Syrian Army with the percentage "growing by the day".[146]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army

[craigt3365]

There are many opposition groups.  The FSA is just one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

I can't even count how many there are, and how they've morphed over time.  Nobody truly understands it all.

 

Here is the one I was thinking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_National_Council

Quote

 

The Syrian National Council seeks the end of Bashar al-Assad's rule and the establishment of a modern, civil, democratic state. The SNC National Charter lists human rights, judicial independence, press freedom, democracy and political pluralism as its guiding principles.^[11]

 

In November 2012, the Syrian National Council agreed to unify with several other opposition groups to form the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, commonly named the Syrian National Coalition.^[12][13][14]

 

 

And here's another:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coalition_for_Syrian_Revolutionary_and_Opposition_Forces

Quote

The main aims of the National Coalition are replacing the Bashar al-Assad government and "its symbols and pillars of support", "dismantling the security services", unifying and supporting the Free Syrian Army, refusing dialogue and negotiation with the al-Assad government, and "holding accountable those responsible for killing Syrians, destroying [Syria], and displacing [Syrians]".^[13]

None of these two were comprised of radical Islamists.  But you are right, they never amounted to much from a military point of view.  They had the right goals.

 

This is an excellent analysis of the opposition groups.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-15798218

 

[nasanews]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

 

The opposition disappeared after Russia started bombing them and killing them all.  They linked up with ISIS.  What is the say?  The enemy of my enemy is my friend? LOL

I don't think national Syrian rebels like Syrian free army who consists of decent Syrians including highly educated professionals would agree to be with such horrible maniacs like isis because isis came into Syria 2013 two years after the revolution started in 2011. The question that points fingers to the U.S as a world leader country how come they let Russia bomb civilians and rebels fighting their brutal dictator without U.S approval.

[tonbridgebrit]

44 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

And here's another:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coalition_for_Syrian_Revolutionary_and_Opposition_Forces

None of these two were comprised of radical Islamists.  But you are right, they never amounted to much from a military point of view.  They had the right goals.

 

You're willing to say "but you're right, they never amounted to much from a military point of view". 

Well yes, that's what some people have been trying to say on ThaiVisa, for ages !!!  Basically, the bulk of the action against Assad has been done by 'radical groups' like ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front.

[craigt3365]

13 minutes ago, nasanews said:

I don't think national Syrian rebels like Syrian free army who consists of decent Syrians including highly educated professionals would agree to be with such horrible maniacs like isis because isis came into Syria 2013 two years after the revolution started in 2011. The question that points fingers to the U.S as a world leader country how come they let Russia bomb civilians and rebels fighting their brutal dictator without U.S approval.

Right....

[ilostmypassword]

21 minutes ago, nasanews said:

I don't think national Syrian rebels like Syrian free army who consists of decent Syrians including highly educated professionals would agree to be with such horrible maniacs like isis because isis came into Syria 2013 two years after the revolution started in 2011. The question that points fingers to the U.S as a world leader country how come they let Russia bomb civilians and rebels fighting their brutal dictator without U.S approval.

It wasn't a matter of agreeing to be with Isis. They tried to form their own independent militias. And in the main they defected to Al Nusra. They failed militarily. As for Russia acting without the USA objectingl...I don't think there was ever an era in modern times where the Russians felt obliged to comply with US objections..  Now the Qataris, the Saudis, and the Turks seem to have acted without the USA's objection. Was that any better? 

[nasanews]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

 Now the Qataris, the Saudis, and the Turks seem to have acted without the USA's objection. Was that any better? 

How in your mind could you compare hundreds of thousands murdered in Syria with some childish game between Qatar and blockade countries.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, nasanews said:

How in your mind could you compare hundreds of thousands murdered in Syria with some childish game between Qatar and blockade countries.

How in your mind could you think to participate in this thread when you are ignorant of the fact that Qatar was one of the main supporters of Islamist militias in Syria?

[craigt3365]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

How in your mind could you think to participate in this thread when you are ignorant of the fact that Qatar was one of the main supporters of Islamist militias in Syria?

As was Assad, previously.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

As was Assad, previously.

Assad released jailed Islamist militants to go fight in Iraq and make trouble for his enemies on the basis of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.. No evidence of materiel support. And yes, it did backfire on him. 

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Assad released jailed Islamist militants to go fight in Iraq and make trouble for his enemies on the basis of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.. No evidence of materiel support. And yes, it did backfire on him. 

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n07/peter-neumann/suspects-into-collaborators

Quote

In the years that preceded the uprising, Assad and his intelligence services took the view that jihad could be nurtured and manipulated to serve the Syrian government’s aims. It was then that foreign jihadists first entered the country and helped to build the structures and supply lines that are now being used to fight the government.

Evidence is there, if you wish to see it.

[Morch]

51 minutes ago, nasanews said:

I don't think national Syrian rebels like Syrian free army who consists of decent Syrians including highly educated professionals would agree to be with such horrible maniacs like isis because isis came into Syria 2013 two years after the revolution started in 2011. The question that points fingers to the U.S as a world leader country how come they let Russia bomb civilians and rebels fighting their brutal dictator without U.S approval.

 

US "meddling" - Bad.

US not "meddling" - Bad.

 

Can't make everyone happy.

[Morch]

52 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

You're willing to say "but you're right, they never amounted to much from a military point of view". 

Well yes, that's what some people have been trying to say on ThaiVisa, for ages !!!  Basically, the bulk of the action against Assad has been done by 'radical groups' like ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front.

 

Them Kurds somehow keep dropping from your "account" of events.

[tonbridgebrit]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Them Kurds somehow keep dropping from your "account" of events.

Morch, I'm just responding to and agreeing with what craigt said. You want to go on about the Kurds ? They're fighting, but they themselves will probably be a problem in the future. Turkey (a NATO member) does not actually want the Kurds establishing a new homeland if Assad does go.

[tonbridgebrit]

2 hours ago, nasanews said:

I don't think national Syrian rebels like Syrian free army who consists of decent Syrians including highly educated professionals would agree to be with such horrible maniacs like isis because isis came into Syria 2013 two years after the revolution started in 2011. The question that points fingers to the U.S as a world leader country how come they let Russia bomb civilians and rebels fighting their brutal dictator without U.S approval.

nasanews, I find your opinions a little bit odd. You want to condemn Assad for butchering lots of people. You also say that ISIS are maniacs ?  ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front are the main fighters against Assad. You want to blast Assad and the rebels ?

The rebels are being funded by places like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. But you don't want to condemn Saudi Arabia and Qatar ? You want to condemn Obama, because Obama allowed Assad and the Russians to fight the rebels ?  The Russians have done things, Russia doesn't need permission from America to do stuff. You really think the Americans should have done more to bomb Assad ?
 

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, I'm just responding to and agreeing with what craigt said. You want to go on about the Kurds ? They're fighting, but they themselves will probably be a problem in the future. Turkey (a NATO member) does not actually want the Kurds establishing a new homeland if Assad does go.

 

Yawn.

 

You "agree" with the bits that fit, and ignore the bits that don't. Going out of your way to describe all resistance to Assad's rule as either AQ or ISIS.

[Morch]

Just now, tonbridgebrit said:

nasanews, I find your opinions a little bit odd. You want to condemn Assad for butchering lots of people. You also say that ISIS are maniacs ?  ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front are the main fighters against Assad. You want to blast Assad and the rebels ?

The rebels are being funded by places like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. But you don't want to condemn Saudi Arabia and Qatar ? You want to condemn Obama, because Obama allowed Assad and the Russians to fight the rebels ?  The Russians have done things, Russia doesn't need permission from America to do stuff. You really think the Americans should have done more to bomb Assad ?
 

 

There's no inherent problem with condensing actions by both Assad and those opposing him. Not an either/or thing. Do Assad's forces (and those supporting his rule) kill only combatants? Only card carrying members of Ai-Nusra Front and ISIS?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, tonbridgebrit said:

nasanews, I find your opinions a little bit odd. You want to condemn Assad for butchering lots of people. You also say that ISIS are maniacs ?  ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front are the main fighters against Assad. You want to blast Assad and the rebels ?

The rebels are being funded by places like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. But you don't want to condemn Saudi Arabia and Qatar ? You want to condemn Obama, because Obama allowed Assad and the Russians to fight the rebels ?  The Russians have done things, Russia doesn't need permission from America to do stuff. You really think the Americans should have done more to bomb Assad ?
 

For the first sentence. Yes!  Blast em' both!  Maybe that will stop the worst humanitarian disaster in recent history.

 

You forgot to leave out the funding by Iran and Turkey.  I do believe Lebanon is in there also.  Along with several others.

[tonbridgebrit]

4 hours ago, Rancid said:

Well the Saudis aren't exactly a pillar of democracy, in they they are a viscous dictatorship, why would anyone give them any credibility whatsoever? Secondly what business is it of them who the Syrians voted as President, at least Syria, unlike Saudi Arabia actually holds elections.

 

Then there is the issue that it is even admitted by western officials that the Saudis are financing ISIS is Iraq and Syria. So they are saying that they don't support the democratically elected government and want their head chopping Jihadists to take the country over by force. And this gets treated by Reuters as a headline of credibility? Bizarre...

 

Yes, lots of people reckon that Saudi Arabia has no credibility in this. But, Saudi Arabia is funding the rebels, as you are saying. And this means that Saudi Arabia is having a massive impact on Syria. The war in Syria will continue as long as Saudi Arabia and others continue to fund the rebels. Washington has to order Saudi Arabia to stop the funding, that's when the war will finish.

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

For the first sentence. Yes!  Blast em' both!  Maybe that will stop the worst humanitarian disaster in recent history.

 

You forgot to leave out the funding by Iran and Turkey.  I do believe Lebanon is in there also.  Along with several others.

 

Lebanon, as a country, no. Hezbollah is deeply involved in the fighting, but that's another can of worms.